5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."



2. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



5. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.

No comments about Some of It Was Fun: Working with RFK and LBJ.

5 comments about Warren G. Harding (The American Presidents Series).

1. John Dean's volume on President Harding succeeds due to the following:
   
   1. It takes Harding's accomplishments seriously without subjugating them to his failures as do other biographies (i.e. He had good cabinet members, but chose poorly as well; He was elected by a huge margin but woman voters found him attractive, etc). Harding for too long, as Dean's work observes, has been the victim of bias and not scholarly study. Harding deserves to be taken seriously as president, and Dean faithfully does this.
   2. Although Harding was to some extent a philanderer, the author does not give this undue focus, rather he focuses more on what Harding tried to accomplish, even highlighting his acts of courage.
   3. As have other solid biographies, Dean shows how the Harding story was written not by historians, but by anti-Harding writers, and how his private papers, long hidden and not catalogued, allowed anyone to write basically anything. Of interest were the comments by Randolph Downes, who, after juxtaposing the discovered Harding papers to popular opinion about Harding, wrote in his article "The Harding Muckfest" in the Northwest Ohio Quarterly:
   "It is high time for a painstakingly honest and scholarly appraisal of the life of Warren G. Harding."
   It is of interest that a recent book on the Teapot Dome scandal was titled "Slick and the Duchess", again sensationalizing the Harding years (Was Harding called "Slick" when he lived?, was the "Duchess", Mrs. Harding, even involved in the Teapot Dome scandal?)
   
   Building upon Murray's "The Harding Era", Ferrell's The Strange Death's of President Harding, and Trani and Wilson's "The Presidency of Warren Harding" Dean's book continues a fair historical and academic renovation of the Harding years.
   However, that being said, one still gets the picture of an historian rummaging through a pile of Harding papers, holding one up and proclaiming "See, the real Harding years were better than what many think!" True enough, but even when the real Harding has stood up, there just isn't enough in the pile to really take Harding beyond this. While Dean's book restores Harding to where he should be, it cannot save him from his lackluster place in American History.



2. There is nothing wrong with giving a broader perspective on Harding, but the documented facts are never going to go away. Anyone who says Harding wasn't responsible for Teapot Dome and all the other corruption scandals that went on during his administration (such as the Veteran's Administration) simply doesn't understand the concept of Chief Executive accountability. While no one has ever said that Harding himself was corrupt, the fact that so much of his inner circle was corrupt says all we need to say about the man. Harding was a simple man who gave a great speech and had an authority about him. He had a cold wife but he was a man of privilege who preoccupied himself with the pleasures always afforded such men: good cigars, women on the side, golf and other activities with his male peers of the day. He left the day to day running of the country to a set of cronies who ultimately proved to be thoroughly rotten. Apologetic Republicans would like to re-write this little stretch of history because it is a cautionary tale of cronyism masquerading as conservatism. The fact that John Dean penned this book makes it all the more interesting, but Harding was no Nixon by any stretch of the imagination. Nixon may have left office in disgrace but I think that he was still one of the most intelligent and innovative presidents of the 20th century, and he was running his own show, not somebody else. Harding was more like George W. Bush, a mouthpiece for a staff full of robber barons.



3. I've read every known book about Harding and own most of them. He certainly was an interesting man; bad presidents are often more fun to read about than good ones. I've been through Harding's house in Marion, Ohio, several times, listened to docents there try to beatify him outrageously and visited his and the Duchess's magnificent tomb in Marion. I've even tried to listen to Harding's speeches on the record put out by the Ohio Historical Society, but that was too painful. As H.L. Mencken said, Harding strung words together like wet sponges. If Harding was trying to say something, it was all lost in droning and alliteration.
   
   John Dean, whose other books I admire, just tried too hard, I think, to redeem Mr. Harding with a coat of whitewash. He never should have been president--by experience, by education, by leadership qualities, by common sense. He prefered to play poker and dandle Nan Britton on his knee, perhaps even at the White House. He liked to golf and write mushy letters to another lady friend--letters on U.S. Senate sationery while sitting in the senate, in session. He paid lip service to prohibition and drank alcohol, but only one glass per day, Dean explains. It seems doubtful that Harding ever really understood the real issues. In short, he was a bungler and a hypocrite. Oddly enough, that makes him fascinating, in a way that, say, Jimmy Carter is not.
   
   Fortunately Harding was president at a time when he could do no great immediate harm, although his opposition to the League of Nations may have contributed to the disasters that followed. His biggest fault was probably naivete. He was simply done in by some really bad friends, such as Fall. Forbes, Smith, Daugherty, Means, Denby et al. As Truman is quoted in the introduction to this book: "The buck stops here." Harding, like Nixon, is responsible for the sort of people he attracted and put into government.
   
   Mrs. Harding comes across in Dean's encomium as an attractive and rather self effacing woman in the Dean book. She was older than her husband by several years, and there was nothing attractive about her, physically or intellectually. No wonder Harding slipped out of the house at night to drink with the boys, play poker and whatever. One observer at the time said Mrs. Harding had a voice that would etch glass and called her husband "Warrrn."
   
   The biography by Mr. Dean tries to polish off all the rough spots on Harding's CV, but it just doesn't work. Harding wasn't the worst president we've had, but he wasn't a good one either. The Dean book doesn't change that.



4. I could't wait to read this book. After seeing all the reviews with most being positive and some being highly negative I was intrigued about this book causing so much debate in its reviews here on Amazon. I must say the book did not disappoint me at all! It is a excellent must read book! It made Harding a human being, not some ogre, dummy or crook who never did a good thing as some would have you believe. It showed him in his best moments, in his bad moments, showed his shining achievements and his terrible failures. Harding comes through as a big hearted well-meaning man who learned much from being President and was growing into the job as he went along. The book also shows his shortcomings and his own coming to realize his own limitations and how he tried to compensate for these. While the book leaned more to the positive, it also did not diminish or apologise for his mistakes, shortcomings or bad decisions. However, it was nice to see his achievements, advancements, victories and strengths applauded and explored. What a refreshing breath of fresh air to read about Warren G. Harding in this light and this alone makes this book a must read! If you want to see Warren G. Harding in a more balanced way do read this book!
   
   Unlike many books this one is well-researched. It has tons of footnotes so you can check out the statements, quotes and if they are taken in context by John Dean. Check them I did, and I found no misquotes, misstatements or anything taken out of context. Excellent job by John Dean in this area! I like well-researched books that can back up their claims with documentation. I also like the fact that this author uses the papers of the Warren G. Harding administration in drawing his insights and conclusions. Excellent job in documentation makes this book much more powerful in its presentation.
   
   It was refreshing to read about Warren G. Harding in a positive light. Some would have you believe that nothing good happened under the Harding Administration. This book describes very well the accomplishments that most overlook when Harding is considered. Every President has their failures and accomplishments and this book touches upon both bringing a much more balanced account of Harding and his Presidency than most books in the past have. However, John Dean does play up the the positive side slightly more, but with good reason. So much negative press has been given in the past with regards to this President and his Administration that to dwell upon this would not justify a new book on this topic. By reading this book in combination with others, which are more negative, one gets a much more balanced account of President Harding and his Presidency.
   
   I liked how John Dean also explored the negative claims and clarified them, putting blame where blame is due and through documentation and use of other's first hand knowledge he refuted some of the more outragious claims. His use of Colonel Starling's quotes is one example of documentation that is helpful. I've read Colonel Edmund Starling's book and his being a Secret Service Agent from Woodrow Wilson thru FDR's years is interesting, informative and eye opening in regards to the Presidents he served and protected. John Dean perhaps plays a bit too lighty upon the negative, but in the introduction Dean does state he was concerned at how to best portray the truth of who Harding was, how he was elected and how he operated and performed as President. I feel he accomplished his goal very well with this book.
   
   The flow of the book was done very well also. It was a pleasure to read and I never found myself bored, distracted or the reading tedious. It is a very well written, very well organized, very well researched and a very impressive book. You will come away from this book with a very different view of Warren G. Harding and his Presidency. For me I see him now in a much more balanced light. He made good and bad decisions. He had some of the best and some of the worst Cabinet members. He saved the government lots of money only to have some in his adminstration steal quite a bit. He had his moments of brilliance and his moments of either extreme ignorance or extreme naivete. Warren G. Harding was a very human President who did some very good things and made his share of mistakes. Was he the worst President ever? I don't think so, but I sure do not believe he was anywhere near being a great one either. If you want a much more balanced look at this man who I believe did the best he could do and achieved more than we are led to believe read this book! Five Stars.



5. Interesting factors. John Dean (of Watergate note) authors this biography of Warren G. Harding in The American Presidents series. And he grew up in Marion, Ohio, where Harding lived for many years. And, against all odds, Dean makes Harding seem much less the failure that he has been branded over time. Does the author succeed fully? Each reader will have to judge for himself or herself, but I did come away from this book with a different impression of Harding than the one I brought with me as I sat down to begin reading this volume. One thing to Dean's advantage--access to Harding's papers which were not available to many earlier biographers.
   
   Dean makes his view plain at the outset (Page 1): "Warren G. Harding is best known as America's worst president. A compelling case can be made, however, that to reach such a judgment one must ignore much of the relevant information about Harding and his presidency." As with all books in this series, we begin with a brief introduction to the character's life, in this case starting with his birth in Ohio in 1865. He tried studying law and selling insurance, but only came into his own when he managed to purchase the Marion Star, a daily newspaper. He appears to have been good at managing the paper and serving as a reporter in addition.
   
   He began to be active in Republican politics in Ohio and, down the road, with the help of some political pros, he was elected as a state senator. Shortly thereafter, he became one of Ohio's two Senators in Washington, D. C. He came to national attention with a speech at the 1916 Republican convention. Some even thought of him as a dark horse candidate to get the nomination, but he chose to bide his time. His career in the Senate was not characterized with any major legislation bearing his name (and he often "missed" roll call votes on divisive issues, thus not offending either wing of the Republican Party). He decided to run a low key campaign to be the Presidential nominee of his party, surmising that no single leading candidate could gain enough votes to clinch the nomination. His suspicion turned out to be correct. He received the nomination and won the election.
   
   His presidency, as described by Dean, is an interesting mix of positive steps, such as his effort to undo some of Woodrow Wilson's racist policies, his foreign policy, and even his choices for the Cabinet (most were very fine, although Albert Fall, of course, represented a major exception!), but not a presidency where major accomplishments emerged that caught historians' eyes later on.
   
   One will have to evaluate the extent to which Dean makes Harding appear to be something more than the worst president in American history. I think he has made a case that the reader must confront, however, and that itself is something of an accomplishment.

5 comments about The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics.

1. Author James Oakes tells us this: in 1860 Frederick Douglass wrote of the upcoming presidential election "I cannot support Lincoln." But in 1888, Douglass said he had met no man "possessing a more godlike nature than did Abraham Lincoln." What had happened?
   
   Oakes gives us a quick glance at his hypothesis within the subtitle of his book: the triumph of antislavery politics. As he explains, this doesn't apply to Lincoln. Lincoln was always an anti-slavery politician, although his thinking on how and how fast slavery should be destroyed changed over time. But with regards to the use of politics as the means to abolish slavery, the man whose thinking moved more was Frederick Douglass. And although the two men share the billing in Oakes' title, this is far more a book about Douglass than Lincoln. It is a book about the evolution of the reasoning of Frederick Douglass.
   
   That evolution, as Oakes paints it, began for Douglass from the belief that the issue of slavery transcended politics and the compromises that came with it. Oakes traces how Douglass the reformer began to be drawn into the political arena, alienating the abolitionists who had first supported his career. But still he carried with him that insistence on absolutism. He brooked no delays, no strategic maneuverings. Lincoln and the Republicans were gradualists, and therefore were deemed irresolute and untrustworthy.
   
   After the Civil War began, Douglass found even more reasons for outrage. Lincoln refused to immediately emancipate the slaves. The President even countermanded the Union generals who issued proclamations freeing the slaves in the territories they conquered. Lincoln had not yet issued a retaliation policy against confederates who captured and often executed southern blacks who had joined the Union army. Oakes gives us deft insights into Lincoln's thinking on all these issues. Douglass, who apparently was not himself an acolyte of consistency, bounced back and forth in his electoral attitudes. But he never let up in his pressure on Lincoln nor in his condemnation of the President's lack of strong steps against slave-holding interests.
   
   Then, first in 1863, Lincoln meets with Douglass. About a year later, at Lincoln's request, they meet a second time and Lincoln asks Douglass to draw up a plan to get as many slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation as possible. Over that span Douglass' thinking with regards to Lincoln undergoes a dramatic shift. Afterwards, his criticism of Lincoln essentially stops.
   
   Oakes describes these meetings, including a third just after Lincoln's second inaugural address, in as much detail as consistent with the small format of the book. He relies largely on Douglass' own recollections. Oakes also gives us dramatic retellings of other events in Douglass' career that illustrate the development of his thinking, but also the refinement of his skills as a political strategist.
   
   We are still left wondering what exactly was the effect of those meetings with Lincoln. Was Douglass simply overwhelmed, as others were, by the force of Lincoln's understated humaneness and thereby convinced of the President's genuine concern for blacks? Or did Lincoln persuade Douglass that his political methods were the best possible under the evolving circumstances? Or did Lincoln flatter Douglass into acquiescence, especially in enlisting his help during that second meeting?
   
   These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Oakes in no way downplays the significance of these meetings. But I believe he wants us to see that what happened was entirely consistent with the evolution of Douglass' thinking with regards to politics. As a reformer, he saw it his job to always keep the pressure on. But where and how best to apply that pressure --- that changed in his meetings with Lincoln. And, near the end of Douglass' life, when he raised Lincoln to sainthood, he was still putting the pressure on. But he was using Lincoln's reputation to apply that pressure against the backsliding that the post-Reconstruction era had brought. Douglass had found a way to combine the duties of a reformer with a sophisticated instinct for politics.
   
   "The Radical and the Republican" is not a dramatic retelling of events. It is certainly not a co-biography of its two principals. But it does have drama. That drama comes from taking Douglass' thinking seriously and mapping out its development and growing political sophistication. To do this, it uses comparisons with Lincoln's thinking and the interplay of the two men's principles and actions. But it's not by accident that Douglass comes first in the book's title and its cover. There are many books about Lincoln. This is a book about Frederick Douglass.



2. One of the easiest things to do, especially on the web, is to take a highly regarded leader of the past, say, Abraham Lincoln, pull a few of his quotes or actions out of their historical context, and supposedly "prove" how horrible that leader actually was. In contrast, author James Oakes explains Lincoln to us postmoderns the way an historian should - by reminding us of Lincoln's circumstances and explaining Lincoln's overarching purposes. Oakes does this without resorting to making Lincoln a saint. According to Oakes' compellingly-supported evidence, Lincoln refused to compromise two essential commitments - to antislavery and to the American political system. Lincoln would not compromise his antislavery position to get more votes, nor would he compromise his oaths to uphold the Constitution to undermine slavery. This dual commitment of Lincoln's goes very far in helping us understand why Lincoln limited his goal to preventing the spread of slavery before he became president, why he didn't just go ahead and free all the slaves when he became president, why he moved slowly towards emancipation during the war, etc. Furthermore, the author's discussion of Lincoln's overwhelming desire to change the hearts and minds of Americans about slavery instead of merely forcing through political change regardless of wider support was especially useful. As the "Republican" in the title, Lincoln wanted a government that represented the will of the people; therefore, the will of the people needed to be converted before the government could make radical change. The fact that Lincoln helped accomplish this more widespread change is quite a testament to his legacy of leadership.
   
   The "Radical" in the title is another great American, Frederick Douglass. Unlike Lincoln's, Douglass' reputation typically is not in dispute. Most of us love Douglass, and for good reason. Oakes doesn't tarnish Douglass' reputation, but he does help us to understand how Douglass' singular commitment to antislavery/antiracism, as compared to Lincoln's dual commitment explained above, often put Douglass at odds with the political process AND caused Douglass to speak out so vehemently against politicians like Lincoln. From Douglass' perspective, only immediate emancipation and egalitarianism would serve justice. Thus, by necessity, Douglass would oppose and criticize Lincoln - that is, until the two men met.
   
   One of the reviewers below critiques Oakes for supposedly overstating the relationship between the two men. I believe this critique is misplaced because Oakes never claimed to be writing primarily about the interpersonal relationship between the two. Instead, he's writing about the interplay of the radical ideology of one, and the antislavery politics of the other. Also, I think that Oakes analyzes the relationship between Brown and Douglass comprehensively, not simplistically, as a reviewer below seems to believe.
   
   As a person who teaches history at the college level, and as a person who enjoys reading history for fun, I would recommend this book. I intend to make it one of my required texts for my survey American history course, alongside Frederick Douglass' autobiography.



3. There is a perennial tension in any democracy between those who insist that there must be scrupulous respect for the law, and those who insist that at times a higher law must be followed. Philosophical and moral disagreements separate the two groups. But so does temperament.
   
   James Oates' The Radical and the Republican masterfully witnesses to the crucial role temperament plays in determining which side of the political and moral divide one lands in the higher law debate. Lincoln (the republican) was by nature a man inclined toward moderation, reason, patience, and unemotional analysis. Although always a loather of slavery, it took the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act to put slavery in the middle of his political radar screen. Even then, he insisted that slavery was implicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, and that, short of a constitutional amendment, the most a President or Congress could do was to geographically contain it. Lincoln, who eventually adopted a policy Oates calls "strategic racism"--refusing to speak against the race-baiting so popular in the U.S. in order to make his eventual decision to emancipate the slaves an easier pill to swallow--thought John Brown a madman.
   
   Douglass (the reformer--or better, perhaps, the rebel) had a much more phlegmatic tempermant: emotional, volatile, black-and-white thinking, quick judgments. Although aligned when young with the pacifist Garrisonians, Douglass was never much of a pacifist. But he imbibed the Garrisonian insistence that the Constitution and the government, through their complicity with slavery, were utterly corrupt, and that a higher moral law not only sanctioned but obliged disregard of them when it came to slavery. Douglass, who adopted a policy of black self-reliance which Oates calls "strategic separatism," thought John Brown a hero.
   
   The Civil War created an extraordinary environment, argues Oates, in which Lincoln the republican and Douglass the reformer began to converge. Lincoln dropped his idea of gradual and compensated emancipation by issuing the Emancipation Declaration and lobbying for the passage of the 13th Amendment. Douglass, under the influence of Gerrit Smith, came to see the Constitution as an anti-slavery document and politics as a legitimate method to reforming society. By the time Lincoln was murdered, Douglass had come to greatly admire the man who he mercilessly criticized through much of the war. And Lincoln went out of his way to refer publicly to "my friend" Douglass. Still, their basic temperaments remained quite different, and it's curious to reflect on what their relationship might've evolved into had Lincoln lived.
   
   Oates' discussion of the two men is fascinating, well-written, and well-documented. Strongly recommended not only for those interested in the Civil War but also for anyone interestd in the higher law debate.



4. I am reading this book now and am struck by the evolution of Douglass' ideas about politics. At first, he was angry and rejected all compromise, influenced by radical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. Later, he began to see the value of politics and compromise and became a Republican in 1856 when John C Fremont was the nominee of the new party. Douglass accepted the necessity of compromise and a strategy of gradual starvation of the institution of slavery. From rejecting the Constitution as a "slaveowners' document", he became an enthusiastic supporter of the American system and sought citizenship for the freed slaves once the South collapsed, by war or economic forces they could not resist. I wish some Black Liberation advocates would read it. Douglass was a wise man and not as radical as the title suggests. An excellent book. Also a new look at Lincoln although I knew most of the story.



5. On Douglass, Oakes looks at how he moved from radical to politician throughout his life, including wedding himself so much to the GOP in his last years that he apparently never entertained the idea of a "Free Vote Party" paralleling the Liberty Party of his younger days.
   
   No, it's not a full bio, but it leads to further questions. Was this the "settling" of an old man? Was it an evolving pragmatism? Did getting a patronage job bank his inner fires?
   
   On Lincoln, Oakes takes a careful look at the long-debated issue as to whether or not he had any racist bones, either before election to the presidency or even after.
   
   On 126-29, Oakes tackles the pre-1860 politics of Lincoln re black-white relations beyond slavery with depth. He says Lincoln simply accepted white intransigence was so great that blacks never could have equality and that it was not a case of Lincoln himself rejecting racial equality. Nonetheless, Oakes believes "spineless" is a legitimate charge, as is "cynical."
   
   More serious are some of the themes from a pro-colonization lecture, in essence, Lincoln gave to northern black leaders shortly before announcing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
   
   Oakes sees this as a more cynical version of Lincoln's 1850 stance on accepting white racism even though Lincoln didn't hold to it himself. After claiming in the past "racism" and "slavery" were different, Oakes says Lincoln now tried to conflate them with a cheap syllogism.
   
   This level of analysis is what makes the book all of the things I said in my header.
   
   No, again, this is not a complete dual bio. But Oakes' excellent "For Further Reading" appendix points to the best bios on both men, as well as takes on the Civil War militarily and socially, Reconstruction and more.

5 comments about Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder: The Woman Behind the Legend (Missouri Biography Series).

1. I purchased this book to read about how Laura Ingalls Wilder became the celebrated author of the Little House series of books. I was very disappointed, therefore, that this uninsightful, dry, fragmented, and repetitious tome read more like a bad history book with too many statistics, facts and figures, rather than character analysis, leaving me with no more knowledge of Laura's character than before I read it. For example, after describing ad nauseum all the organizations and activities one could possibly participate in their town, the author states that we do not know if Laura and her family enjoyed any of them. It was frustrating to constantly read the words "probably, maybe, if, we can presume ....." The author makes too many assumptions and repeatedly expresses his inability to accurately understand and relay Laura's personal feelings due to the unfortunate lack of diaries, letters, and journals left behind by Mrs. Wilder. Relying too much on her daughter, Rose's writings, he portrays Laura as an overprotective, condescending, controlling mother and a domineering wife who refused to vow to obey her husband during their wedding. Miller is not quite sure he even believes Rose's unflattering portrayal of her mother, because she was mentally ill and emotionally unstable herself. This book contains so much one-sided information about Laura's daughter that it should instead be titled Becoming Rose Wilder Lane.



2. I found this to be a good book, although I wish the author would have personalized Laura a little more. The ongoing battle between mother and daughter might have been overemphasized, but one comes to learn that this probably worked for both of them. I found a lot of good information, but the statistics were a little much. I found myself reading between the lines and wanted to get back to the meat of the story...Laura.
   
   I recommend this book to any Wilder fan, for it does give us a glimpse into the woman she really was. Like anyone else, Laura was only human, faults and all.
   
   Meloni Cassidy
   Author of Everlasting Journey



3. This would be a very interesting book if I had not already read all the little house series plus the book where she went to Mansfield from DeSmet and the one where she went to visit Rose in San Francisco.
   
   This is best read before reading the other books. The books by Laura Ingalls Wilder give more detail than any of the birographys by any other author.



4. This is the real-life Laura and family. Biographer John Miller provides tremendous detail in a smooth, quick and fascinating read. Gives a lot of historic context from the time of Charles and Caroline's childhood through the 1950's, and many new tidbits about Laura's actual childhood. The most thought-provoking and disturbing section of the book is toward the end, covering the period between 1925 and Laura's death in 1957.
   
   Rose, having worked and travelled all over the world as a successful author, came home to Rocky Ridge for some 9 years in the late 20's and early 30's. While there, she suffered frequent depression, writer's block, financial trouble, and a frustrating relationship with her mother, Laura. Yet it was at this time that she helped Laura begin the Little House books, the first of which was published in 1932. The collaboration between the two on the series has been a topic of contention among scholars, critics, and fans from the beginning. Here we learn the truth, book-by-book, on who wrote what, and how each felt about her role in the partnership.
   
   This truth is enlightening and yet Rose's sad mental state and resentment toward Laura is a bit heartbreaking for fans who still believe in Pa's beloved, spunky, hard-working, Plum Creek-swimming, Nellie Oleson-hating, hay-making, bible verse-reciting, school-teaching, buggy-riding, half-pint who wanted nothing more than to send her blind sister to college.



5. This is by far the best biography on Laura Ingalls Wilder available. This is a scholarly, indepth look that goes beyond her books and looks into what made her a writer. Written for adults.

5 comments about The Catcher Was a Spy: The Mysterious Life of Moe Berg.

1. I'd been anticipating reading this book for some time, but getting through it was a chore. Dawidoff's writing and research are thorough. Berg left behind a wealth of personal material and many who knew him were still alive and available by phone or personal interview to Dawidoff. Hundreds of anecdotes and details about Berg's life emerge from these resources, and Dawidoff marches them all past the reader. The question is "Why?" Berg never becomes very interesting. It is well-known that he was a mediocre major league catcher. He was not much better as a spy, excelling mostly at running up large expense accounts. His tradecraft was abysmal; making and keeping notes to himself about briefings he received is such a fundamental error as to be ludicrous. After more than 300 pages it remained hard for me to take Berg seriously in any of his endeavors. In the end this is the biography of a moderately interesting obsessive dilettante, whose avoidance of normal human contact except on his own often strange terms seems almost pathological. Dawidoff tries valiantly but a New Yorker profile of about one-tenth this length would have been a sufficient account of Moe Berg's mildly curious life.



2. Moe Berg is truly one of the most interesting, and enigmatic, characters in sports history. What always fascinated me was how, after WWII and no longer in baseball, Berg never worked. He would stay at friends and relatives' homes throughout the country, reading multiple newspapers, and maintaining strict control of those papers. My guess, and this would make for an interesting investigative study, is that he stayed on the OSS/CIA payroll and was working for them, in some capacity: Dissecting the news, dealing with Communist espionage - or who knows, maybe he was working with foreign elemnets. Berg was something. He has to be considered a major hero. Surely the fact that he was an ex-ballplayer makes him stand out from the other heroes under "Wild Bill" Donovan, as does the fact that a Jew was sent to Nazi-controlled Finland to get German scientists. This is a terrific story. (...)



3. Moe Berg was completely unpleasant. I found myself wondering why I should care about his life. He was a mediocre ballplayer, a mediocre scholar and a mediocre spy. His talent was that he was pleasant to be around. Why write a book about him?
   
   Why read about him? I wondered that. My reaction was, "So what?"



4. This interesting biography covers a most unusual person. Moe Berg (1902-1972) was a talented linguist, ballplayer, and U.S. espionage agent for the OSS (forerunner of the CIA) before and during World War II and briefly for the CIA after the war. Author Nicholas Dawidoff describes Berg's mysterious life, including New Jersey boyhood, studies at Princeton and Columbia, and years as a second-string catcher for the Dodgers, White Sox, Indians, Senators and Red Sox. Even as a player Berg was better know for his linguistic skills and stealth than for his baseball exploits. Then readers learn of Berg's years as a spy, which probably began when Berg toured Japan with other big leaguers in 1934. The author describes Berg's secret wartime activities, including his 1944-45 mission to ascertain the status of Nazi nuclear research. We also read of his later years, when except for brief CIA assignments, Berg chose to freeload off relatives and friends rather than employ his superb linguistic and legal talents (he had a law degree). A Overall, Berg was an enigmatic man, and this biography, written two decades after his passing, fails to uncover much about him - perhaps Berg would have wanted it that way. Still, this is an interesting and nicely researched biography.



5. I felt like I was reading the sports pages for the first 140 pages. Too many stats, facts and figures. The storyline didn't flow, the plot was sluggish and languished for the most part. The story of Moe Berg's life should have packed some punch! I expected more pizazz. His life warranted it, but the book didn't deliver.

5 comments about Diary of an Early American Boy: Noah Blake 1805 (Dover Books on Americana).

1. I read the other reviews before I bought. I guess this wasn't for me. I love diaries but this wasn't really a diary.



2. Like the previous reviewer, this book was not what I was expecting. Thinking that most teenage boys hundreds of years ago are just like teenage boys today, I was very surprised to find a published diary of a kid who was willing to write down his thoughts on life. With many entries consisting entirely of one or two words like "Plowed today." and "Do." (ditto), this book does little to offer the reader insight into the thoughts of this boy. The diary portion of the book is disappointing, and is used as a jumping off point for the author to explain in words and pictures about the technology of the early 19th century. The explanations are fascinating, the technology amazing. Anyone who has ever thought about how the pyramids could have been built by thousands of slaves should take a gander at how a covered bridge (that could hold the weight of oxen and a cart and it's load and driver) was constructed by a few neighborhood farmers. The illustrations are the backbone of this book and they are excellent. I wish the author would strike a deal with the publishers of Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House" series to draw and explain the machinery described in those books. I would recommend this book as a gift for anyone, kid or adult, who is interested in architecture or engineering, or who loves history.



3. I echo what everyone else has written here - an excellent book. Noah's diary is very terse, but Sloane fleshes it out with fascinating details of what living on a farm must have been like for Noah.
   
   Sad thing, though... as I was reading this I wondered if Noah and Sarah Trowbridge, whom he frequently writes about (it's clear he was attacted to this girl) ever married. Alas! I can find no mention at all of Noah Blake or his parents on any online genealogical database. Other than via Sloane's book, Noah Blake seems to be unremembered... but that's sufficient, I guess. (I can find a Sarah Trowbridge born in 1791, but it might or might not be the right one. Not enough genealogical details in Sloane's book.)



4. I've used DEAB (Diary of an Early American Boy) in my fourth grade Science curriculum for a few years now. It's amazing how Noah and his father are able to craft so many tools (and bridges, mills, and homes) using such "archaic" technology. Students are given a first hand glimpse at wood-working, pulleys and levers, and splitting and heating using wood (many of my students actually still heat their houses using wood!).
   The budding romance between Sarah and Noah is an added little perk! :)



5. My 9-year old daughter and I are reading this together. She's not very interested in reading yet, but she likes this book a lot. We're using it as part of a science curriculum about "how things work" and it gives a good perspective on simple tools and machinery from 1805. The illustrations are wonderful.

5 comments about Mary Chesnut's Civil War.

1. Mary Chesnut was a name dropper, and thank goodness, because in passing along her gossip, opinions, news, and personal undertakings, she created the most comprehensive day-to-day record of life in the Confederacy that we have. Although this is both a diary and a later refurbishment of earlier writings (to the point it almost becomes a memoir in epistolary form) Mrs. Chesnut, an aristocratic lady in a position to know a great deal about the workings of her short-lived nation, makes everything seem like a first-hand conversation. Chesnut, like Mrs. Grant and Amanda Wilson, a Civil War-era diarist from Cincinnati, Ohio, has a true gift at making the distant seem immediate. Her reports on the initial euphoria of southern independence from the north and later the reality of hardship and war, are touching, even for one not in deep sympathy with her ideals. What I took away from this diary was something of the horror of loss, as Mary Chesnut's society reeled from death after death, not just of men from combat, but children and women in part from the deprivations war mandated they endure. By the mid-point of her diary, it is a rare entry, indeed, in which Chesnut does not tell of the passing of at least one more friend, or son of a friend. She lived through the destruction of a society and a war in which blood flowed in rivers. Chesnut personally knew a number of the primary figures of the American Civil War, including the wife of Jefferson Davis. She gives a point of view that is not hamstrung by being modern in sensibility, and charts a course of the war's prosecution that might vicariously suggest a later alteration of the record in northern-authored history books. For all these reasons, Chesnut's diary is worth reading.



2. This book is very interesting but it is hard to follow. The intro is very interesting but once you get into the diary part she skips from one topic to another and it assumes a lot. I think it will be worthwhile - it is just going to take me a while to get through it.



3. Reading this book is like opening a door through time and having a daily cup of coffee & gossip session with Mary Chesnut. She was from a fine family with her father being a senator and one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina. Her husband, John Chesnut Jr., was also a senator before the war. He remained politically connected in the Confederacy. He was a general and an aid to Jefferson Davis. Given her situation in life it is not surprising that Mrs. Chesnut had an elite circle of friends and knew everyone that was anyone.
   Mary loved to gossip and name drop and had very strong opinions on any given subject. She had no children so she had plenty of time to be self indulgent and a bit vain. She really must have been a fascinating person as people seem to be drawn to her. Varina Davis was one of her closest friends and she visited the Davis home frequently. She believed slavery to be wrong & hated the fact that there were so many racially mixed children that looked very much like the master of the plantations. She complained about the costs involved in keeping slaves and thought the time had come to abolish slavery. On the other hand, she spoke of slaves like children that needed to be cared for. She also had never had to take care of herself or run a house. She relied totally on her servants for everything.
   She wrote this diary with the intention of including rumors, facts,and anything she might be thinking at the time. John Bell Hood was a frequent visitor and is talked of in her diary quite frequently. She talked about Hood's love for a woman and of his wounds. She referred to him as their "wounded knight". She was a very opinionated, outspoken, and (I think) spoiled women. There are no great military strategies and battle description in her book. She describes the dinners they had or how people were dressed. She talks of all the gossip about all the differert generals and the politics of the day. Reading her diary is like sitting down for coffee with her and listening to the events,real or rumored, that she chats about. She loves all the gossip and thrives on attention She had a front row seat to all events about the war, civilian life, and the downfall of the Confederacy It's wonderful to have the chance to get to know Mary Chesnut with her candid way of writting. She also writes of the trials and tribulations when everything was crashing down aroound her. Her first experience of wearing old clothes, food shortages, no money, & wondering all the while what was going to happen to her and her husband. People were dying all around her and her. Her entire culture & lifestyle were disapearing, everything simply falling apart, yet she kept up her writting. What a fascinating woman Mrs. Mary Chesnut must have been.
   It may be a little difficult to read for some. I think maybe most difficult for men for much of it is "idle chatter" that women do when they get together. There is much information in here that you can only get from someone in the middle of it all.



4. Mary Chestnut was an insightful, well educated, frustrated woman in a society that did not openly encourage women to become interested, certainly not involved, in politics. James, Mary's husband, was what we would call a Washington/Richmond insider. Poor Mary had to convine herself to venting in her diary which requires a good background in the politicians of the day to be informative. For this reason I give it only 4 stars, The earlier edition,Diary from Dixie, was edited by the diarist to be more politically acceptable and better able to sell. There is a considerable amount of gossip in the book which will be interesting to those interested in the personal lives of prominent Confederates, e.g., the affair between General John B. Hood and Sally Preston. Anyone willing to wade through the book with the help of a good who's who in the Confederacy will indeed find this book valuable and interesting.



5. I bought this book while at the Lookout Mountain battle site in Chattanooga. If you watched the PBS Civil War series, you will recognize Mary Chesnut's name.
   
   This is a annotated compilation of her original diaries. Her husband was high up in Jefferson Davis' cabinet, so there are all sorts of stories about the Confederate elite, and the personalities involved.
   
   There are even funny stories, and gossip.
   
   Even though you know how the story will end, it's an interesting read, especially toward the end, as Sherman is on the march. It's long, but you can pick it up and put it down without losing the continuity.
   
   Mary was a witty and perceptive woman who was ahead of her time. She's someone I'd like to have lunch with.

5 comments about Abigail Adams: A Revolutionary American Woman (Library of American Biography Series) (3rd Edition) (Library of American Biography).

1. Akers is limited by the series he is writing for so very little can be blamed on him, in fact he does a good job with what little he is allotted but his use of her first name throughout is not only taboo for historians but could also be considered sexist -- would you call Thomas Jefferson, "Tom" in a biography? Also, major figures in Adams' life have merely the depth of cardboard cutouts. Possibly suitable for the high school freshmen, probably not undergraduate and certainly not for the graduate level.



2. Akers does a great job of placing the information from Abigail's letters into a story, without directly quoting the letters line by line. A story is presented to the reader through the eyes of the First Lady. It was a required text for an American History class, though I did enjoy reading it. The story itself; however, can be deeply depressing while still communicating the accounts of the famous political family. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes to read about the other side of politics.



3. I think everyone should know about this incredible woman and this biography is a good place to start. Everyone is always talking about (and writing about) the fathers of the country. What about the mothers of the country? Charles Akers does a good job of bringing Abagail alive.



4. While this was a quick read, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's bio was much, much better and far more interesting.



5. I was very pleased with the timing and condition of this book. I will look forward to shopping with you again. Sincerely Nontrad stu.

2 comments about Man of the People: The Maverick Life and Career of John McCain.

1. Okay, I haven't read the book, but just listening to this guy being interviewed is painful enough. He's a Hillary Clinton supporter who claims to be a lifelong democrat, yet he'll only vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket, otherwise he'll vote for McCain. He sounds like a very bitter Hillbot who only wrote the book to take votes away from Obama. I can't imagine him thinking he'd be successful. I feel sorry for people like this. They should all just move to Kansas and cry on each other's shoulders 24/7.



2. The most comprehensive McCain biography available, Paul Alexander's MAN OF THE PEOPLE: The Maverick Life and Career of John McCain paints a balanced, thoughtful portrait of the man who may be the next President of the United States. Readers, regardless of their political persuasions, will find MAN OF THE PEOPLE a must-read during a Presidential campaign that will clearly be a watershed in American politics and history.
   
   Much of the controversy surrounding John McCain, argues Alexander, is owing to the fact that McCain is a centrist. In his overall political agenda, McCain can be seen as progressive on some issues, conservative on others. In foreign policy, he is neither an isolationist nor one who endorses nation-building. His acknowledgement of the importance of the global community of nations suggests he is less likely to pursue a unilateralism that can spell disaster - the type of unilateralism that drove the Bush administration's war in Iraq.
   
   On the environment, McCain has evolved as a progressive. A skeptic about global warming when he first arrived in Congress, he has evolved over time to become one of the most ardent proponents of initiatives to protect the environment.
   
   On social issues, he has proved harder to define. He has been a steadfast defender of the right to life, yet has repeatedly said he is not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. On gay issues, he continues to support "don't ask, don't tell" and opposes gay marriage. Yet he also attacked the Federal Marriage Amendment, a cornerstone of President Bush's reelection platform in 2004.
   
   On fiscal issues, he has proved himself to be a conservative - at least to a point. He endorses the fundamental tenet of fiscal conservatism, which says spend only what you have. But while he supported the tax cuts of the Reagan administration, he opposed the Bush administration's tax cuts because they gave too much to the most fortunate among us and too little to those who need tax relief most. A cornerstone of his political career has been his fight against government waste and pork-barrel spending; curtailing both, he believes, could help bring into line a federal budget that is currently out of control.
   
   Among the many issues MAN OF THE PEOPLE explores are:
   
   * New information about the campaign staff shake-up last summer that saved McCain's faltering presidential bid, and how the shake-up forced him to make the agonizing decision to fire longtime friend and political adviser John Weaver.
   * How McCain's career shifted from a stalwart Reaganite to a moderate, independent Republican whose focus has been campaign finance reform, gun control, and environmental issues.
   * Why Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter hate John McCain and how the conservative base of the Republican Party's distaste for McCain will affect the general election this November.
   * A new analysis of how, for much of the presidency of George W. Bush, McCain has fought hard in the United States Senate to undermine a large part of the Bush agenda, undercutting any claims to be made in the upcoming presidential race that a McCain presidency would represent a continuation of Bush policies.
   * The most extensive examination to date of the character assassination of John and Cindy McCain carried out by Karl Rove during the 2000 South Carolina primary, which led one top McCain aide to call the 2000 Presidential race "the dirtiest race I've ever seen."
   * His military career from his days at the Naval Academy to his time as a POW, and the profound hatred for war that emerged from his wartime experiences.
   
   Alexander says that, ultimately, McCain is virtually impossible to pigeonhole as he, more often than not, strives for the middle ground, which is why he so often teams up with Democrats to produce meaningful legislation that can be passed by Congress and signed into law. His affinity for the common ground, his desire to govern from a consensus, is what makes him appealing to Independents as well as mainstream Republicans. A centrist, not just on foreign policy but also on domestic policy, he is running for president to return the country to the middle of the political spectrum.